For three parallel projects with the following requirements—A must stay within budget, B requires minimal risk exposure to claims, and C must be fast-tracked with low-bid bidder selection—which delivery method set would you recommend?

For three parallel projects with the following requirements—A must stay within budget, B requires minimal risk exposure to claims, and C must be fast-tracked with low-bid bidder selection—which delivery method set would you recommend?

• A. Project A: Design-bid-build; Project B: Design-build; Project C: CM at-risk
• B. Project A: Design-build; Project B: Lump-sum; Project C: CM at-risk
• C. Project A: Multiple-prime contracting; Project B: CM at-risk; Project C: Design-bid-build
• D. Project A: CM at-risk; Project B: Design-build; Project C: Design-bid-build

Answer: (C)

The key idea is matching each project’s constraint to a delivery method that best supports it, balancing risk, cost control, and schedule. For the budget-focused project, multiple-prime contracting helps keep costs under control because it breaks the work into separate packages with competitive bids, while the construction manager coordinates and oversees the whole effort. This structure makes it easier to monitor and manage costs across different trades, reducing the chance of overruns and allowing tighter budget adherence. For the project aiming to minimize claims risk, CM at-risk is the strongest fit. The construction manager is brought on early, develops a costable plan, and delivers a guaranteed maximum price. This arrangement shifts significant construction risk to the CM and provides cost certainty, which reduces exposure to costly claims and change orders. For the fast-tracked project with a low-bid bidder objective, design-bid-build aligns well. It uses a straightforward, price-driven bidding process for well-defined design packages, enabling lower bids and a clearer path to procurement and project progression once the design is sufficiently complete. Although speed can vary, the low-bid, competitive bidding aspect is a hallmark of design-bid-build, supporting a fast, cost-competitive procurement approach. Together, this combination allocates delivery methods to optimize each constraint: budget control via multiple-prime contracting, reduced claims risk via CM at-risk, and competitive, low-bid procurement via design-bid-build.

The key idea is matching each project’s constraint to a delivery method that best supports it, balancing risk, cost control, and schedule.

For the budget-focused project, multiple-prime contracting helps keep costs under control because it breaks the work into separate packages with competitive bids, while the construction manager coordinates and oversees the whole effort. This structure makes it easier to monitor and manage costs across different trades, reducing the chance of overruns and allowing tighter budget adherence.

For the project aiming to minimize claims risk, CM at-risk is the strongest fit. The construction manager is brought on early, develops a costable plan, and delivers a guaranteed maximum price. This arrangement shifts significant construction risk to the CM and provides cost certainty, which reduces exposure to costly claims and change orders.

For the fast-tracked project with a low-bid bidder objective, design-bid-build aligns well. It uses a straightforward, price-driven bidding process for well-defined design packages, enabling lower bids and a clearer path to procurement and project progression once the design is sufficiently complete. Although speed can vary, the low-bid, competitive bidding aspect is a hallmark of design-bid-build, supporting a fast, cost-competitive procurement approach.

Together, this combination allocates delivery methods to optimize each constraint: budget control via multiple-prime contracting, reduced claims risk via CM at-risk, and competitive, low-bid procurement via design-bid-build.